Getting it very wrong...

I've come across a blog entry by former left-wing turned right-wing journalist Julia Langdon who comments on what she calls 'the gay movement'.

It started with "outing," which was an unforgivable intrusion on the private lives of homosexual persons; it labels gays who live by a moral code and prefer to live quietly as "self-haters." It insists on separateness -- gay neighborhoods, gay pride days, gay rites, gay clubs, gay cruises -- while demanding "full inclusion and acceptance." It shouts down as "homophobic" anyone who respectfully disagrees. Not many women I knew bought into the feminists' agenda; no homosexuals I know want much to do with the activists' agenda, either. They are church members, business owners, and employees whose homosexuality is a small part of their makeup and not their reason for being. They resent all of the attention and don't see taking on churches and church leaders as particularly helpful....

A lot of inaccuracy here.

First, only one organisation 'outed' to my knowledge, and they restricted that only to those, like Bishops, who were gay in private, homophobic in public. I don't personally agree with that tactic, but it was never widespread.

Second, it labels only gays who join organisations whose reason is to attempt to turn them into heterosexuals as 'self-haters' - for that is what they are. I live by a moral code and live quietly. I'm happily gay. Self-hatred is characterised by lack of acceptance of one's sexuality

Third, the separate institutions mentioned have almost nothing to do with the gay movement, but the pink pound! If builders of flats, bar owners, cruise lines and so on think there's money to be made by targeting the gay market, then that's what they will do. But I'll wager that 'movement activists' are less likely to live their lives in the commercial gay ghetto!

Full inclusion and acceptance will take place when there is no demand for such separate provision, because there is no perceived need for it.

As for 'respectful disagreement': problem is, that 'disagreement' is usually accompanied by reasoning why gay people are unequal and why discrimination should be accepted and incorporated into law. Funny, that....

As for taking on churches, most gay people think the church is a joke and wouldn't go near it with a bargepole. But given that they wish to impose their right to discriminate in areas such as the employment of lay people or other matters which have precisely nothing to do with them, they must be challenged.

All the 'gay movement' wants is civil and legal equality. A reasonable request, I'd say, and its because the movement , epitomised by Stonewall in the UK, has been sensible and moderate, that we have achieved so much.